Looking across the landscape of contemporary culture

Women and the priesthood

I’ve just written a piece about women and the priesthood, in response to this week’s bus campaign promoting women’s ordination. It was posted on Independent Catholic News, and then used as the basis for an article on CNN’s Belief Blog, which has so far received a staggering 1087 comments! Not all of them very edifying…

Anyway, the copyright is mine, so I can paste the original article here for anyone who is interested:

Last year the religious slogans on London’s buses were hesitant, and ended with gentle exhortations: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Now they end with a shout: “Pope Benedict – Ordain Women Now!”

The latest posters, timed to coincide with the Papal visit, are funded by the campaigning group Catholic Women’s Ordination. It’s unlikely that Pope Benedict will be using his Oystercard, but the hope must be that if his Popemobile gets stuck in traffic, one of these buses will glide by and catch his attention.

The Catholic insistence that only men can be ordained as priests is incomprehensible to many people, and the cause of much personal anger and ecumenical heartache. Pope John Paul II seemed to close the door to any revision when he wrote in 1994 that this teaching “is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”.

He took a surprising approach. He didn’t stamp his feet and shout: I won’t! Instead he said: I simply can’t. I don’t have the authority to change something that has been such a fundamental part of Christian identity from the very beginning. The argument is not about holding onto the past for its own sake, but trying to be faithful to what Jesus wanted for his Church.

In the New Testament, Jesus chose twelve men to represent him as his first priests, as the Twelve Apostles. Every generation of Catholics (and Orthodox) since then has understood this to have been a choice that was deliberate and significant, not just for that first period of history, but for every age.

Some argue that Jesus couldn’t have done otherwise in the Jewish society of his time. This doesn’t stand up, as he was quite willing to involve women in other aspects of his mission and ministry, in ways that would have seemed revolutionary.

Others say that women’s ordination, even if Jesus had wanted it, simply wasn’t conceivable in the pre-feminist religious cultures of the last 2000 years. But this ignores the staggering diversity of cultures in which Christianity has been embedded.

Even in societies that have been broadly matriarchal (with rich Roman matrons running the early Christian house churches, or powerful medieval abbesses ruling ‘double’ monasteries of men and women); even when women ‘priestesses’ were an established part of the surrounding religious milieu – Christians still took for granted the idea of the male priesthood.

This is why Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict, are saying that this is much more than a time-bound cultural norm that needs updating. It’s something deeper that touches on the very meaning of priesthood.

This teaching is not at all a judgment on women’s abilities or dignity or rights. It says something about the specific role of the priest in Catholic understanding – which is to represent Jesus, to stand in his place. The Church is saying something quite radical. On the one hand, there is a fundamental equality between all human beings, between men and women. On the other hand, this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident.

People sense this. If I announced that I was making a film about Jesus or King Arthur or Wayne Rooney, no-one would be surprised if I said I wanted a male actor to play the lead. It’s a weak analogy, but it shows how the notion of ‘representation’ can only be stretched so far. A woman, as much as a man, can reflect the love of Jesus, and help others to know his presence through her faith and witness. But it shouldn’t surprise us if we expect a man to stand ‘in the person of Christ’ as a priest, to represent Jesus in his humanity – a humanity that is not sexually neutral.

Where does this leave women in the Catholic Church? In the same position as the majority of men (that is, all those who are not priests). It leaves them to live their faith passionately in the service of others, to use their many gifts to the full, and to realise that ordination is not the measure of an individual’s worth in the Church.

The young Catholic women I know, especially those with a strong sense of vocation in the Church, are channelling their energies into all sorts of creative projects and life choices. Some of these choices are very humble and hidden; others involve more public responsibilities – in politics, education, social work, Christian mission, the media, etc. Most are working ‘in the world’, but some have very significant roles within the Church itself.

These young women seem less interested in internal debates about ordination, and more concerned with rolling their sleeves up and putting their faith into practice. They are Christian feminists, whether they like the title or not. But it is a feminism that is untroubled by this Catholic understanding of the male priesthood.

29 Responses

Dear Stephen, sadly I have to disagree with you. the positions of power in our beloved church seem to be held only by priests – so are closed to women. Your comparisons between the freedom of women in the 1st century and now are just plain wrong: I agree that thepast subjugation of women is often overstated but it is quite wrong to suggest that Christ could expect of his female contemporaries exactly the same physical freedoms as males, or as women have now.
Your theatrical analogy is specious and, Im sorry to have to say, rather trivial (and wrong: Sarah Bernhardt’s Hamlet was legendary!) Most arguments against women priests, I’ve slowly come to notice over the years, are either trivial or ridiculously convoluted – both signs of arguments rustled up to defend something that just isn’t worth defending any more.
Until we have women priests, our Church will be marginalised more and more as one of the religions that regard women as second class citizens. I find most young Catholics I meet cannot understand the reasons against women priests but instead see the Church as foolishly ignoring the vast potential in 50 % of its members.
What is needed is an open debate, not a response of “not listening, la la la” CWO are a worthy group but don’t seem to know how to talk
to the heirarchy, and vice versa. It is very sad.

Thanks for the heartfelt reply Sarah. Let me give a couple of quick thoughts before bed:
There are lots of things we are not clear about. All we know is what Jesus did – which is choose twelve men to be his first apostles. Obviously, you can’t jump from this simple fact alone to the belief that women cannot be priests. What you do as a Catholic when there is this lack of clarity is look to the Tradition of Catholic practice and teaching, to see how this scriptural reality has been lived and understood over the generations. And it’s striking that in every generation, in every culture, in cultures vastly different from each other, the Church has held onto the assumption that Jesus wanted men and not women to be ordained. This ‘looking to the Tradition’ is not about getting trapped in the past for its own sake, it’s making sure that we are seeing the truth of our faith from all possible perspectives, and not just from the perspective of our own culture – in case we are being mislead by our own culture. And when there is still, in some people’s minds, a lack of clarity about what the Tradition is saying, or what it means, then as Catholics we look to the teaching authority of the Church. And, again, it’s striking, that recent teaching about women’s ordination could not be more emphatic. It says that this understanding of the male priesthood is a teaching that is at the heart of Catholic faith; that has been taught clearly and consistently; and that can’t be changed. I’ve put the full quote from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis below. I really do understand and sympathise with some of the points you make. But when something this important is at stake, and different Catholics are torn and have various different understandings, I don’t know where to look other than to the Scriptures, and the constant Tradition of the Church, and the present teaching of the Church.
Two other thoughts: First, my ‘actor’ analogy. It doesn’t prove anything, and it’s not meant to. It’s meant to raise a question: Why is it that people expect a male actor to play a male character? Of course a woman can play a legendary Hamlet, and bring something to the role that is unique because of her own unique talents, and because of her gender. But why is it that people expect Hamlet to be played by a man, and are surprised if he is played by a woman, and feel that something essential and fundamental is missing if a woman takes the part (even if they have enjoyed and appreciated it)? I think it is because it transposes the relationships in the play: For Hamlet, to be a daughter (which is what ‘he’ becomes if played by a woman) is not the same as to be a son; to be a sister is not the same as to be a brother; to be a male friend with men is not the same as being a female friend with men – even if there is much in common. People sense this. They take it for granted. This isn’t sexism, it’s a reflection of people’s natural understanding of sexual differentiation and complementarity. And the relationships between the actor/actress and audience members are transposed too. I’m not saying this proves anything about the male priesthood. I’m just giving it as an illustration about how significant gender can be, and how to change a representation of gender changes the relationships that are being represented as well.
Second: I’m not sure you speak for all women when you write about women being second class citizens. You are associating citizenship with priesthood, which seems strange – when it is our baptism and call to holiness that make us Christians, citizens of the Kindgom, not being a priest. And many women I know would be surprised and even shocked by you saying that their vast potential is being ignored, when they feel (many of them at least) that they are using their human and Christian potential to the full, living heroic holy lives; some hidden, some public; some in the world; some in the Church. I hope we can hear from some of them in the comments box.
Sorry this got so long. You asked for ‘open debate’ – so here it is. If you have time to come back at me over the next couple of days please do.
Stephen
PS. I found this book really helpful: Sara Butler, The Catholic Priesthood and Women – someone who used to disagree with the Church’s teaching and then came to appreciate it. I’d love to know what you think.
PPS: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II, 1994: “4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

I am really pleased that you have had the courage of your convictions to reiterate the Church’s position on the ordination of women, Father Stephen. It is clearly an issue on which there are very strong views in many directions.
I converted to the Roman Catholic faith in 1981, having been raised in the Church of England so I missed the furore over women’s ordination as an active Anglican.

I have to confess that, for social, political and personnel reasons, I can see why the Anglican communion and some other denominations voted for the ordination of women. I must also say that, through my work, the I have met and worked with (ordained) women hospital chaplains who have all been excellent in their roles. However, I also have to confess my belief that, in addition to what you have said, the ordination of women cannot be the way forwards for the Roman Catholic Church. From a social perspective, I don’t feel that women Priests would be readilly accepted by the vast majority of people; indeed, I have heard several people who converted to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism over this issue say words to the effect “we came to Rome over this issue, where do we go from here?”. Moreover, I don’t think that the ordination of women would be an answer to the shortage of Priests in our Church. I don’t envisage a vast number of women putting themselves forward for selection for training because the way of life of a Priest simply would not appeal to the majority of women today.
I am glad that the Church has the fortitude to stand by it’s teachings and to resist the social and political demands of our time concerning equality.
Once again, thanks for a great post.

Another thought which has nothing to do woth theology but, I believe is very real to people and pertinent to the debate about the ordination of women in the Catholic Church. My experience is that many people yearn for, indeed crave some semblance of stability in their lives. Wherever we live, whatever we do, life is full of quite rapid changes that effect every aspect of human life. The refusal of the Church to ordain women has the effect of giving some stability in this ever-changing world of ours.

There is a beautiful bit in the 4 part sermon by Fulton Sheen ‘The woman I Love’ which explains perfectly why priests should be male. And in his perfect sermon he exults women and their very blessed and beautiful place of grace and being within the Catholic Sacred Church. But Fulton Sheen is not in every church, although with a little female input ours is closer than some :O) !

I felt honoured when I listened and heard this sermon. And I felt beautiful and understood and appreciated and valued. And happy to be the female.

Yes it is awesome that a priests education is second to none. Yes I want my daughters to have that same apostolic education as my Sons, just as I would have liked. Yes I want my daughters to influence the men and brothers and fathers whom they Love. And yes I want them to be brides to their spouses, because Gods intention was one of beautiful balance and Love and harmony and a model of perfectness.

Jesus never once apologises for any of his relationships.

But It does seam as if the early church fathers radically played down any of the female influences in Jesus’ life, which is not surprising as there was cult worship before of female Deities and Goddesses. But within this cleansing, the very revolutionary and radical respect and Love that Jesus had for his female friends and that their influence had on him has also been lessened, and therefore in our time Gods intentions have been played out in an often less balanced way.

In my home I have enough ‘housekeeping’ to kill off even the most hardworking of innkeepers, the last role I want in my church is one of housekeeping. I want to be a part of the theology and discussion and intimate fellowship and education and discipleship and deepest prayer, and retreat, and radical compassion and and and…… maybe I should have been born a male.

Well said!! Of course the path of women within the life of the Church is not without issues and there is also plenty of scope for progress and development. But for me the ordination issue is, of itself, a red herring. What fascinates me within the capacities of women is the difference between their spousal nature and their maternal nature. The maternal nature can be rather strong and capable, with a huge instinct for ministry and bringing a sort of family sense of cohesion to a group. From this perspective it is easy to see why women look at parish situations and think that they could make great pastors. And from prayer to action there is never any shortage of possibilities for our maternal natures to be put to use in this way. But I think that it is the spousal nature of woman that is really fascinating. She who receives from the Trinity. It is a mystery to me; a deeply fascinating mystery! In my spousal nature I recoil profoundly from the concept of standing in the place of Christ on the cross during Mass. That is Jesus’ job and the job of His priests. Instead I revel in the fact that as a woman God has made it my job to receive Him. I don’t know. It’s all a big mystery.

However, your church history is missing a few details – not your fault – naturally, the evidence is either unpublished or disputed by Rome.

Into the 800’s, women were ordained in the church – to the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy. This did not happen in every time, or every place. But it did happen.

When I was completing my M.Div. at a Roman Catholic institution I found a published rite for the simultaneous ordination of male and female deacons. This rite dated to around 400-500.

There is a great deal of archeological evidence supporting that women were ordained – frescos and tiled ceiling, mummy toe tags identifying women as deacon and priest. And the crypt of Julie Runa, priest, in the floor of the Cathedral a town that was called “Hippo,” and dating to the 400’s.

Ordination had a different meaning until scholastic theology took hold. It had been an “ordering” into a role in society. With scholastic theology, ordination became an ontological change. With the rising misogynism of the time, women were written out of ordination.

Even if this were not true, how is it that men define what God can and cannot call a woman to do?

Thanks for posting Kathleen. I’m not sure about the evidence for all this; and I’m not sure how much it would reflect a broader acceptance of women’s ordination in the Catholic tradition. As for men defining what God can and cannot call a woman to do: I do believe in the apostolic authority of bishops, who are men. As a Catholic, I find it very hard to see how someone could not have some room for bishops (who are men) speaking to the whole Catholic community (men and women) about the call of God in their lives. If you didn’t really believe that the bishops have this kind of teaching role, surely it would be almost impossible to be a Catholic?

If ‘ordination’* had a different meaning before the scholastics – or at least an unclear meaning – that makes it less plausible to use ‘ordination’ of women in the early centuries as an argument for ‘ordination’ – now understood ontologically – in the 21st century. I don’t think we have to dismiss the work of the scholastics. It is (I think) somewhat implausible to claim that they departed from the tradition.
(I’m not using the quotation marks as scare quotes, merely drawing attention to the possible difference in meaning)

This is a letter I received from a 90 year old researcher/Christian mystic whom I have known for many years, controversial for some maybe, but none the less kind of relevant to your blog. I thought you may like to share her thoughts.

“Re your dissertation on women priests, your priest of course has to adhere to the RC doctrine of only male celibates. I am somewhat ambivalent about it. I am not personally comfortable with a woman priest in charge, but can find no practical argument against it. As your priest says, reactions are strongly influenced by heritage and custom, and I am too old now to change my feelings , which are emotional rather than logical. If women priests are acceptable, then women bishops come in the same category. Jesus was a Jew and Jews accept women Rabbis, who are not technically priests but teachers. Rabbis have to be married, so if Jesus was a rabbi then he was married. Young Jewish men were expected to marry and have children to increase the tribe. Peter, who is accepted by the RC church as their founder, was allegedly married. Marriage between two people who love each other is the most beautiful way of sharing, and the creation of a child is a miracle. I like to think that perhaps Jesus was able to experience that joy. I would elect Mary of Bethany as his wife because Bethany was the nearest he had to an earthly home, and it was the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus their brother, who was his friend. I am sure Lazarus and not John was the “beloved disciple!” – there is reasonable circumstantial evidence in the gospels.

The early Church fathers elected to amalgamate Mary of Bethany with Mary of Magdala, without any evidence. There were certainly women among the disciples. Jesus presumably elected the 12 apostles (and check the Synoptics – it is not possible to get agreement on who they were) because in the current lifestyle at that time men were more suited to the job of travelling abroad to spread the word, not just because they were more favoured for being male. Women were more enclosed and protected, virtuous women did not flaunt themselves in public. It is the mother of the family who lights the candles on the Sabbath.

We must read the scriptures with reference to the time and circumstances in which they were written, and Mark, which I think is the earliest gospel, was 40 years after the crucifixion. There are no eye witnesses. The accounts are all here say, passed on verbally, and you know how “Chinese whispers” distort truth. Circumstances change, people forget, different people remember the same events differently. The synod of Nicaea, which produced the gospels as we have them, was a committee of rather bigoted old Church Fathers who distrusted history and ruthlessly threw out anything which they did not like, and they did not like women very much. They feared them, and the survival of the ancient Mother Goddess cult. The Virgin was sanitised until she became barely female. Magdala, with her long hair and vase of perfume, was a fit object for unjust and unfounded vilification as a whore.

I think my dear old Fr.Colin of St Mags was right, ultimately we must all find our own way.”

As a young women who has worked in the Church for a number of years I wanted to say “Thank you” for this post. I seem to spend a great deal of time being judged and having assumptions made about me by those on both sides on this debate and I do in many ways agree that this issue is a real “red herring”. It can be positively damaging to the place of women within the Church and re-inforces the assumption that Ordination is the only thing that gives worth and allows for a real and active role (It can also make afterdinner conversation tedious and akward!).

The real debate here is the understanding of what Priesthood is in itself, and more personallythe various ways that each Christian is called to give of their time and talents.There are ways in which women can and should become more involved in the work of the Church and I’m not denying that in some instances structures and attitudes may need to change. However our preoccupation with Ordination as validation is false.

I am fortunate to work with priests, religious and lay people who realise that to build one body, made of many and various parts we need men and women, lay and ordained to work together- this should and actually will make us richer, closer and more joyful in service.

Dear Father Stephen,
Part of the problem that Kathleen, and many other people have, is the confusuion of ministry and priesthood. They are not the same and all Christians, male & female are called to ministry. Someone recently asked what Pope Benedict’s reaction would be when he meets an Anglican. female priest in England. He will, of course, recognise her as a “minister of the Gospel” but not a priest in the Catholic sense. That is how we can regard good female hospital chaplains. Indeed, hospital and school chaplains can be lay people. A friend of mine from St Stephen’s House days is now a Catholic parish priest. He will attend the licensing of Anglican women clergy in his area although he does not believe women can be priests. He does so out of charity; and indeed, he would attend the commissioning of Salvation Army officers who are not priests in any sense, but who ministers of the Gospel. What the Church of England has done is to move towards greater clericalising of the the church by making women priests. There is great disagreement among Anglicans about what priesthood means and most women priests are not from the Anglican tradition which would uphold a Catholic view of priesthood. The nwoamn vicar in my village has few eucharists and most services are of the “all age service” variety.” These do not require an ordained ministry.

As Alex says, there is a need for the minsitry of all to be developed whilst affirming the theological need for a male priesthood. Most misunderstang of the issue seems, to me, to reflect a deficient incarnational theology which leads in turn to a deficient sacramental theology and a deficient ecclesiology. Newman and Pope Benedict are rooted in the patristic tradition, the insufficient emphasis of which in Anglican theological education has led to the gains of the Oxford Movement being abandoned but carried on in the Catholic church.
Your piece, Father, sets out the issues most clearly and you do address the counter arguments clearly. I am in full agreement with you.

I am a lay member of the Roman Catholic Church. Until nearly 30 years ago, I was an Anglican and had experiences of many of the varying types of ‘churchmanship’ in the Church of England but felt drawn towards the ‘High Church’ or Anglo Catholic movement. I was recieved into the Roman Catholic Church in 1981 for several reasons which I can sumarise as being “the right move for me at the time”. I still feel I made the right move and feel at home with my Roman Catholicism.
Two of the things which, as a teenager always impressed me about the Catholic Church (and still do impress me) were, firstly, that Catholics seemed to be sure of what they believed based upon firm and certain teaching by the clergy and the hierarchy. Secondly, they were members of a Church whose teachings and practices changed very infrequently (I didn’t experience Vatican 2). I count myself lucky to have been called to membership of our Church and based upon my life experiences, I fully endorse Robert Tickle’s comments.

I agree that the veil is stretched finest here than it has ever been before, especially for me. God touches me. But we all must remember that God is Love, and it is Love that is the sole call of every human being regardless of views or religion or gender, not conflict x

The main argument is from Tradition, and is not at all theoretical/speculative. It’s simply that the Tradition has had no problem with non-Jews being ordained; it is an early part of Church practice. There has been an understanding that the basic requirement for priesthood is a baptised man – without any other qualifications. So I would be wary of trying to give theological/philosophical justifications. If I were speculating, however, I would say that there is something absolutely fundamental about being a man or a woman. Of course there are many other things that will define someone, and be a core part of someone’s identity, but (I’m just speculating now) perhaps gender goes even deeper.

I have said in recent posts on this subject that I remember the debate and furore caused by the proposed ordination of women in the Anglican communion. I also know a fine Anglican Priest who converted to the Roman Catholic Church and is now a Priest in our Church.
It seems this debate will go on and on at ‘ground level’ although, it seems, it is not open even to consideration by the hierarchy.
It is an issue on which I am frequently questioned by non-Catholic friends about and, at times, I confess to have been stumped for answers. Thankyou, Father Stephen, for helping to clarify the issues by this open discussion of the subject. Because of the diverse views of people in society and in our Church, I am sure the debate will continue with the expression of strong feelings from many who both propose and oppose women’s ordination of women. But, suffice it to say, I feel better prepared to enter into discussions on the subject after you raised it.

Father Stephen:
I agree with you, and the Church, totally. Perhaps my reasons are simplistic, or perhaps, like gender, they run deeper. I feel that to many people spend their energy arguing rather than seeking out the good in something. Not only do I not question the Church, but I find comfort in things that have long been “decided” and carry on as always. I do not always respond to your blogs, but I do read and consider your words. Thank you for bringing your thoughts to all of us.

I think your arguments are condescending and I find this this following phrase of yours risible and offensive.”These young women seem less interested in internal debates about ordination, and more concerned with rolling their sleeves up and putting their faith into practice. ” So we Catholic women can’t engage in debate and do the work of God then ? Well women are far better at multitasking than men and that’s a fact !! Here is a quote from a professor of divinity at Edinburgh University which says it far better than I could ever do but i agree with her views and am saddened by your views.
The point is that nothing much can be achieved by women arguing and discussing on biblical grounds or doctrinal re-interpretations alone because this is to try to use the patriarch toolbox to dismantle the patriarch’s house, using the famous phrase from Audré Lorde.
It is the whole theocratic structure and oligarchic conception of a church based on an old cosmovision of the world dividing people according to race, gender roles and sexualities which is passé, and has little historical possibility to survive. It is not leaving the church which is the issue, but working for an entirely different project of being church in which women and men will share their priestly vocation that we should be striving for.

A church involved at the margins of society a church in dialogue and involved in democratic models, will be a church in which we will look like Christ. Because in the present model of being church, I don’t look like Christ and neither do you, if by Christ we understand a masculinisation project which by the way, does not even represent the realities of real men in this world, outside medieval stereotypes based on the feudal orders of lords and servants.
Models which allocate women reproductive roles and divide them (in the words of Pope, Paul VI) into martyrs’, virgins and mothers. But we do look like Christ if our lives and Christ’s own life can relate and talk to each other, if Christ is about justice and human dignity, antihierarchical, antisexist, antiracist and anticlassist. Genitalia apart, Jesus’ sexuality and gender roles show that nothing is inherited but that society makes men and women (and messiahs too).

But if we define the church as living community in dialogue with Jesus, we keep growing together in a deeper understanding of theology, sexuality and the church’s mission and yes, we look like Jesus, and curiously women, on whose oppression depends all Patriarchal institutions including the church, may look more as Jesus than the pope himself and the whole male priesthood together. It is our actions and ministering in community, our commitment to justice and peace, which ultimately demonstrates who looks like Jesus and who doesn’t.

Thanks for posting. The views here are so radically at odds with my own understanding of Church and culture, and with the understanding of most women I know, that it would be hard to address them properly here in a brief reply.
Just for the record: As you say, I wrote: ”These young women seem less interested in internal debates about ordination, and more concerned with rolling their sleeves up and putting their faith into practice.” I’m not at all suggesting that Catholic women can’t engage in debate and do the work of God at the same time – of course they can; I’m simply saying that in my experience, on this issue, young women are less interested in debating their right to ordination and more interested in living their baptismal priesthood in the world. It’s not about their ability to multitask; it’s about how they choose to prioritise their energies, and what they spend their time on.

As for your statement ” the views here are so radically at odds with my own understanding of Church and culture, and with the understanding of most women I know” all I can say is that I beg to differ and I too have spoken, read and studied the arguments on both sides. Several women and men including priests and there are plenty “out there” who are Catholic wish for change in the church on this and many other issues.
The problem may be as Fr James Martin SJ has said is that many people in our church including priests are afraid to speak out and if they do they are censored. I was active in lay ministry, RCIA and youth work for many years until ill health intervened and the issue always caused problems and your arguments against women priests were discussed and in my experience were not considered viable by the majority.

On further reflection I would just like to add that finance is an important factor when we are thinking about the capacity of lay people – men and women – to collaborate creatively and on a full time and trained basis with the ordained priesthood. I have Protestant friends who are part of tithing communities. These communities are able to provide for an exotic array of full time pastors, some of whom they even send abroad on mission. I am talking here of communities that are no bigger than one’s average catholic parish.

A few years ago I visited a catholic parish in Milan, St Eustorgio, which each year opens its doors to visitors from around the world. It is an absolutely extraordinary parish. It has a very extensive programme of prayer around the Blessed Sacrament, coupled with a wide programme of Cell groups (house groups). (Incidentally my Protestant friends who I speak of above, are all part of small house groups too). The creativity and dynamism of this catholic parish in Milan has to be seen to be believed. And yet all that they are drawing on are the gifts that are poured out on every
catholic parish the world over.

I am praying that the Holy Spirit will expand and set on fire our expectations of what is possible in each and every parish, and gently and gradually lead us in the direction of realising that vision. Happy Birthday Mary!

Thank you very much for this post, Fr Stephen.
I’d just like to draw attention to the privileged role of women that is Spiritual Motherhood of Priests, after the example of Mary. As St Therese wrote to her sister, in reference to their prayer for priests, “I find that our lot is really beautiful; what have we to envy in priests?”.
In 2007 the Congregation for the Clergy released a beautiful document. – ‘Adoration, Reparation, Spiritual Motherhood for Priests’, calling for women of all states of life to exercise their spiritual maternity by their prayer and sacrifice. It reads:
“The vocation to be a spiritual mother for priests is largely unknown, scarcely understood and, consequently, rarely lived, notwithstanding its fundamental importance. It is a vocation that is frequently hidden, invisible to the naked eye, but meant to transmit spiritual life.”
The document includes many examples of women who heroically devoted their lives to praying for priests, many with incredible results! Our beloved priests need prayers!

It was wonderful to hear on Radio 4 this morning about how much Benedict has personally done to support women in high office within the Catholic Church.

I also feel it would be really beneficial if there were a formal list in churches of vocations and a structured training route for women/men who were passionately interested in other vocations/careers within the church and high office (not Fr, or Sr related)

About this blog

Looking across the landscape of contemporary culture - at the arts, science, religion, politics, philosophy; sorting through the jumble; seeing what stands out, what unsettles, what intrigues, what connects, what sheds light. Father Stephen Wang is a Catholic priest in the Diocese of Westminster, London. He is currently Senior University Chaplain, based at Newman House Catholic Chaplaincy. [Banner photo with kind permission of Matthew Powell]

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Images Policy

As far as I know none of the image use in this blog is against copyright law. Images copied here are either (i) my own or (ii) out of copyright or (iii) used under a Creative Commons License [CCL], which means (roughly, usually) that the photographer (or copyright owner) has agreed the unedited image can be used non-commercially with proper attribution. If I mark an image as CCL it means that I have used the image under a CCL; it does not mean that I am now licensing this image with a CCL.